Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Galaxy Nexus Injunction

Galaxy Nexus Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,821|Likes:
Published by shaylin_clark

More info:

Published by: shaylin_clark on Jul 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE, INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company,Defendants.)))))))))))))))Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHKORDER GRANTING MOTION FORPRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONPlaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) brings this motion for a preliminary injunction seeking toenjoin Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., andSamsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) from “making, using,offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States” Samsung’sGalaxy Nexus smartphone.
Pl.’s Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 10 (“Mot.”). Although Apple’sComplaint asserts a total of eight patents and identifies seventeen accused products, Apple movesto preliminarily enjoin only the Galaxy Nexus smartphone, and moves to do so only on the basis of four patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 (“the ’604 Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (“the’647 Patent”); (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 (“the ’721 Patent”); and (4) U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
(“the ’172 Patent”). The Court held a hearing on this motion on June 7, 2012. Having consideredthe parties’ submissions, argument, and the relevant law, and for the reasons discussed herein,Apple’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the Galaxy Nexus is GRANTED.
Both in the United States and globally, Apple and Samsung have established themselves asfierce competitors in the smartphone market and fierce adversaries in the courtroom. Thisparticular lawsuit, filed by Apple against Samsung on February 8, 2012, is but one action in aworldwide constellation of litigation between the two companies.
Compl., ECF No. 1; JointCase Management Statement 8-10, Apr. 25, 2012, ECF No. 141 at 8-10 (identifying over 40 relatedcases between the parties); Mot. at 6. Indeed, this Court is presiding over another lawsuit,
 Apple v.Samsung
 Apple I 
”), No. 11-cv-01846 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 15, 2011), in which Apple previouslymoved to preliminarily enjoin three earlier Samsung smartphone models (Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G,Infuse 4G, and Droid Charge), as well as the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, based on allegedinfringement of various Apple design and utility patents. In a May 14, 2011 ruling, the FederalCircuit affirmed this Court’s denial of Apple’s motion to enjoin the three smartphones, but vacatedthe portion of the Court’s decision regarding the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, and remandedfor further proceedings.
 Apple v. Samsung
, 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Samsungpetitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on June 19, 2012. On remand,the Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 26, 2012.The instant preliminary injunction motion, filed alongside the Complaint on February 8,2012, seeks to enjoin Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone, which was released in the U.S. inDecember 2011. Def.’s Opp’n to Mot. Prelim. Inj. (“Opp’n”) at 2. At the time this motion wasbriefed, the Galaxy Nexus was the latest in Samsung’s Galaxy line of Android-based smartphones,the first of which was released in 2009.
Opp’n at 2; Decl. of Christopher Vellturo (“Vellturo
On June 6, 2012, the day before the scheduled hearing on this motion, Apple filed a Motion toSupplement the Record Regarding Samsung’s Galaxy S III Product, seeking to expand the scope of the requested injunction to include Samsung’s Galaxy S III smartphone, a smartphone that Applenow also accuses of infringing the ’604 and ’647 patents. ECF No. 201. The Galaxy S III wasreleased in the United Kingdom on May 29, 2012, and had a U.S. release date of June 21, 2012.
See id.
On June 11, 2012, the Court denied Apple’s motion to supplement the record for this
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
Decl.”) ¶ 9 & Ex. 19. Android is a free, open-source mobile software platform developed byGoogle, Inc. (“Google”) that any developer can use to create applications for mobile devices, andthat any handset manufacturer can install on a device. Opp’n at 2. Galaxy Nexus is the firstsmartphone to run Android version 4.0, an operating system called “Ice Cream Sandwich,” and isthe first Android smartphone that will allow the phone to be interoperable with other Android-based devices, including those running the Ice Cream Sandwich operating system. Vellturo Decl. ¶9. The version of Ice Cream Sandwich installed on the Galaxy Nexus is designed by Google.Decl. of Sangbong Lee (“Sangbong Lee Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4.Apple accuses the Galaxy Nexus of infringing four patents: (1) the ’604 Patent, titled“Universal Interface for Retrieval of Information in a Computer System,” which generallydescribes a “unified search” feature; (2) the ’647 Patent, titled “System and Method for Performingan Action on a Structure in Computer-Generated Data,” which generally describes a “links forstructures” feature; (3) the ’721 Patent, titled “Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on anUnlock Image,” which generally describes a “slide to unlock” feature; and (4) the ’172 Patent,titled “Method, System, and Graphical User Interface for Providing Word Recommendations,”which generally describes a “word recommendations” or “auto correct” feature.
Although the Patent Act authorizes district courts to grant injunctions to prevent theinfringement of patent rights, the owner of a valid and infringed patent is not entitled to aninjunction as a matter of right.
35 U.S.C. § 283 (2006) (a federal court “
grant injunctions
in accordance with the principles of equity
to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent,on such terms as the court deems reasonable” (emphases added));
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
, 547 U.S. 388, 391-92 (2006). Rather,
the decision whether to grant or deny injunctiverelief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts,” and “such discretion must beexercised consistent with traditional principles of equity.”
, 547 U.S. at 394. The ruleenunciated in
is as applicable to preliminary injunctions as it is to permanent injunctions.
preliminary injunction motion with additional briefing or discovery regarding the Galaxy S III.
 ECF No. 213.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->